[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 116 (Thursday, September 23, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7544-H7545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PATENTS AND NANOTECHNOLOGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burgess). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the current political 
debate on the economy is usually over the most recent economic 
statistics, but our economic future depends upon our remaining the most 
innovative economy in the world. The policies of this current 
administration and of this Congress are cheating Americans of our 
economic future, of the economic future that we deserve.
  I rise tonight to speak specifically about the need for adequate 
funding for the United States Patent and Trademark Office and about the 
need to help get nanotechnology from the lab to the market.
  Patents and trademarks are critical to the promotion and development 
of the American economy. In an increasingly competitive global market, 
it is essential that the administration and we in Congress do 
everything we can to maintain America's role as the leader in the 
creation of innovative technologies and of new products.
  Innovation and competitiveness depend upon the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the United States Patent and

[[Page H7545]]

Trademark Office, the USPTO. Our biotechnology, electronic, 
pharmaceutical and nanotechnology industries rely on the United States 
patent system. But because of record innovation and growth beginning in 
the 1990s, the USPTO is overburdened to the breaking point.
  The Under Secretary of Commerce For Intellectual Property, Jon Dudas, 
testified that the USPTO may be facing the greatest workload and 
operational crisis in more than 200 years; in other words, in the 
USPTO's history. The backlog is now 475,000 patent applications. By 
comparison, the backlog in 1981 was 190,000 applications. By 2008, the 
backlog is expected to grow to more than 1 million applications. That 
is 1 million ideas, 1 million innovations, 1 million potential money 
makers and job creators that will sit on the shelf until patent 
examiners clear the backlog of cases in front of it and consider that 
application. Once an application reaches its way to the front of the 
line, the time a patent application takes to be approved is also 
increasing dramatically, from 22 months in 1981 to more than 3 years 
for many of our critical technologies. By 2008, the average pendency is 
expected to grow to 6 to 8 years.
  The House has already passed a bill that would alleviate the backlog. 
H.R. 1561 would raise patent fees and allow the USPTO to use the 
revenues to reduce the backlog and patent pendency delays.
  I urge my colleagues in this House, as well as the members of the 
Senate and the administration, to meet the needs of an innovative 
economy by allowing the USPTO to collect the increased patent fees, to 
improve their work.
  Mr. Speaker, our most innovative technologies, our research intensive 
technologies, the very folks who will be paying the increased fees, are 
desperate to pay those fees and to improve the effectiveness of the 
USPTO in processing patent applications. The status quo is just 
unacceptable. We must have an efficient, cost effective patent and 
trademark system to remain the leader in today's global economy.
  Mr. Speaker, as to the next nanotechnology industry, the 
administration's preference for partisan dogma over investment 
guarantees that most of the nanotechnology industry will develop in 
other countries, regardless of how much we spend here in the United 
States on research. The administration did support H.R. 766 which 
authorized funding for more nanotechnology research and development, 
but every amendment to that bill that would have increased the 
competence by our industry in nanotechnology-related manufacturing jobs 
was defeated in the Committee on Science along party lines. My 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), offered an 
amendment that would have authorized money specifically to enhance the 
advanced technology program efforts in nanotechnology. Again, that 
amendment was defeated on a party line vote.
  The ATP, the Advanced Technology Program, is the only source of 
patient capital for many high-tech, small companies in areas like 
nanotechnology, and there is usually nowhere else to turn in the United 
States for a company that is 3 to 5 years from the market and 2 to 4 
years from interesting venture capitalists in their ideas. To the 
administration, though, the ATP is just a corporate welfare program 
that should be abolished.
  Mr. Speaker, highly-skilled, well-paid jobs are going to exist in the 
nanotechnology industry whether or not we support those companies, that 
is true, but they are not going to exist here.
  Mr. Speaker, the triumph of dogma over practicality and over our 
economic future is unacceptable.

                          ____________________